Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 95: To ask the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform the position regarding an application for residency in the case of a person (details supplied) in Dublin 22; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [24040/10]

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The person concerned applied for asylum on 30 March 2000. In accordance with Section 9 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended), the person concerned was entitled to remain in the State until his application for asylum was decided. His asylum application was refused following consideration of his case by the Office of the Refugee Applications Commissioner and, on appeal, the Refugee Appeals Tribunal.

Arising from the refusal of his asylum application, and in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was notified, by letter dated 13 May 2002, that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why a Deportation Order should not be made against him. Representations were submitted by the person concerned at that time.

Following consideration of his case, under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement, a Deportation Order was signed in respect of the person concerned on 28 October 2003. Notice of this Order was served by registered letter dated 4 December 2003 which placed a legal requirement on the person concerned to present himself at the Offices of the Garda National Immigration Bureau (GNIB) on 11 December 2003 in order to make travel arrangements for his deportation from the State.

The person concerned initiated Judicial Review proceedings, challenging the decision of the Minister to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. Based on the decision of the Supreme Court in the 'Nwole' case, these proceedings were ultimately 'settled' which resulted in the Deportation Order being quashed.

On 15 December 2008, in accordance with the provisions of Section 3 of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended), the person concerned was again advised that the Minister proposed to make a Deportation Order in respect of him. He was given the options, to be exercised within 15 working days, of leaving the State voluntarily, of consenting to the making of a Deportation Order or of making representations to the Minister setting out the reasons why he should not have a Deportation Order made against him. Further representations were received on behalf of the person concerned at that time.

The person concerned was subsequently notified of his entitlement to apply for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with the European Communities (Eligibility for Protection) Regulations 2006 (S.I. No. 518 of 2006).

The person concerned submitted an application for Subsidiary Protection in the State in accordance with these Regulations and this application is under consideration at present. When consideration of this application has been completed, the person concerned will be notified in writing of the outcome.

In the event that the Subsidiary Protection application is refused, the case file of the person concerned, including all representations submitted, will then be considered under Section 3 (6) of the Immigration Act 1999 (as amended) and Section 5 of the Refugee Act 1996 (as amended) on the prohibition of refoulement. When this latter consideration has been completed, the case file is passed to me for decision. Once a decision has been made, this decision and the consequences of the decision will be conveyed in writing to the person concerned.